BHASKAR MAHADEV PARSEKAR Vs. SHANKAR VITHAL PEDNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant possession of the plaint property by removing his obstruction, and if necessary by setting aside the order in Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1918, with costs and future profits. The defendant is the purchaser of the land in suit from one Khatkhate. The original owner of the property was one Narayan. Khatkhate sued Narayan in Suit No. 124 of 1916 for specific performance of a contract of sale of the suit land, for execution to him of a duly registered sale-deed, and for possession of the land in suit. A decree was passed in that suit for specific performance on December 15, 1917. As Narayan failed to excecute a sale-deed an order was passed, under Order XXI, Rule 34, Sub-rule (5), of the Code, for the execution of a sale-deed in favour of Khatkhate, and this was executed on February 26, 1918.

(2.) Meanwhile one Ankush got a money decree against Narayan on September 15, 1916, and on July 27, 1917, the property now in suit was attached in execution of that decree. By a Court sale the plaint property was Hold to the plaintiff on January 23, 1918. It was confirmed or February 26, 1918, the same day on which the sale-deed was executed under the decree in Suit No. 124 of 1916 in favour of Khatkhate. The plaintiff obtained a sale-certificate on February 27, 1918.

(3.) The question, therefore, in this suit is whether the plaintiff's title should prevail over the defendant's who claims through Khatkhate, the plaintiff in Suit No. 124 of 1916. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed in both Courts.